The court reinforced that the burden of proof in negligence claims lies with the claimant, and proper evidence must be presented to challenge findings of negligence.

ORDER

1. This civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the award dated 28.01.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Hindaun City, District Karauli (hereafter 'the MACT') in Claim Petition No. 102/2013 whereby claim petition filed by the claimant has partly been allowed and a sum of Rs.5,46,200/- along-with interest @ 7% has been passed in favour of the claimant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. V.P. Mathur submitted that in response to claim petition for alleged accident, written statement was filed on behalf of the appellants wherein the accident itself was disputed and specific stand was taken as there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle of the Corporation-Appellants.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the fact of accident, on a small village road, was specifically pleaded, whereby the injured claimant was also required to be vigilant and since there was head on collision with the bus of the Corporation, the contributory negligence of the injured was also to be taken note of.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned award is challenged primarily on the two grounds i.e. negligence and quantum.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Court below has wrongly come to conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the appellants.

6. Learned counsel submitted that the admitted fact in the present case was in respect of claimant driving a motorcycle and another motorcycle was also alleged to be going whereby two persons were sitting on the said motorcycle.

7. Learned counsel submitted that the evidence laid by the claimant proved that the claimant himself was responsible and negligent in driving the motorcycle and he had hit the bus while driving the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and further since the alleged accident was head on collision, the entire negligence issue could not have been fastened on the Driver of the appellant-Corporation.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that burden of proving the accident due to negligence of driver of the appellants was on the claimant and since, he failed to discharge the same, liability could not have been fastened on the appellants.

9. Learned counsel submitted that the other issue is with regard to quantum/amount of compensation given to claimant.

10. Learned counsel submitted that injured claimant was 24 years of age and the amount which is given to him by applying the multiplier of 18 and same was not required to be applied.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record.

12. This Court finds that the Court below in para 11 of its judgment has specifically recorded a finding that the appellants have not produced any evidence in support of their case.

13. This Court finds that opportunity has been afforded to the appellants to lead evidence and merely by filing written statement, the stand taken by appellants cannot be proved.

14. This Court finds that if the factum of accident was disputed by the appellants and further plea of contributory negligence was also taken, it was incumbent on the appellants to lead proper evidence.

15. This Court finds that in absence of any evidence being led by the appellants on important issue of negligence of driver, the Court below has rightly come to conclusion that it was the driver of the appellants-Corporation who was negligent in driving the bus.

16. This Court further finds that the claimant had produced documentary evidence before the Court below to prove that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation.

17. This Court finds that the injured claimant had produced himself as AW-1 and he specifically pleaded that the driver of the appellants bus was driving the vehicle on wrong side and he was hit by the bus.

18. This Court has no reason to disbelieve the injured claimant and in view of oral statement as well as documentary evidence, no fault can be found with the finding of t